Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJeff Kaplan Date: Dec 11, 2010 8:25am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The Guy With the Secret Kung Fu

That item has been moved. Feel free to continue the discussion regarding possible rights issues.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: derkman96 Date: Dec 11, 2010 8:26am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The Guy With the Secret Kung Fu

Thanks for moving it. Like I said, I am not an expert on GATT and the like, I just had read that it was PD and noticed it was not on The Archive.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 11, 2010 11:35am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The Guy With the Secret Kung Fu

You mentioned here that Wikipedia has it as PD. That's not what I'd call a good source, but I could find no GATT notice at the USCO when I searched for Guy With the Secret Kung Fu or under its Chinese title, Cai yang nu bang zhu.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 11, 2010 9:37pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The Guy With the Secret Kung Fu

Well, that's a bit dangerous.

There are at least 3 major transliteration/Romanization systems for Mandarin Chinese (Wade-Giles, Yale, (Hanyu) PInyin), so there are going to be at least three different ways to spell the Chinese title of that film...not including Chinese ideograms. I'm not even going to bother going to go into the fact that there are some 40 or 50 other transliterations systems for other dialects, like for Yue, Cantonese, Wu, Hakka, et al). Romanization systems change at the whim of the government in the RPC, whie the change with the mood of what peope find easiest to use, elsewhere. So, if it was transliterated one way in the 1960s or 1970s, it could very easily be re-transliterated as something else in something written in the 1980s or even something entirely different to the previous two in the 90s and most recently.

How do you know which dialect (Mandarin *is* a safe assumption, but not always the right answer; for instance, Hong Kong cinema is primarily Cantonese) and which Romanization system was used? Have you tried copying the original ideograms into the search field? the LoC's entire computer system should be fairly current and completely Unicode compliant, so CJK characters should work just fine.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 12, 2010 5:20am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The Guy With the Secret Kung Fu

All that's available to me is the Chinese name from IMDb.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 12, 2010 5:51am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The Guy With the Secret Kung Fu

And the wikipedia entry is borderline useless, too. A least I learned the the language is Cantonese, which cuts down on the list of possible Romanization systems.

Although, whoever wrote the article is the person who originally wrote that it's PD. And the wikipedia article has said that since early 2008 when it was initially written. Unfortunately, he doesn't cite his source, and the entire genera couldn't be any more further from my sphere of interest. Even worse, the only foot note points to the IMDB entry which has even less information.

If I had any interest, I'd cruise the specialist fan sites and look for reliable information.

If it's PD, great. If it's not, oh well. If it's questionable, better to err on the side of caution with the accurate, citable, confirmable, reliable information you *do* have, rather than post recklessly.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)